Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the Canadian delegation of the Canadian Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union concerning its participation in the 121st IPU Assembly and related meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, from October 19 to 21, 2009.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by a number of residents from London, Ontario, and a number of residents from Regina, Saskatchewan, with respect to the issues of Canadian mining companies.

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the Government of Canada that the alleged abuses of human rights and degradation of the environment by Canadian mining companies are a violation of the principles of fundamental justice. The petitioners feel it is the duty of Parliament to hold Canadian companies responsible for their activities when operating in foreign jurisdictions.

The petitioners ask the Government of Canada to create effective laws with respect to corporate social responsibility and to consent to the expeditious passage of Bill C-300.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by some members from my riding and also folks from Kelowna and Vancouver.

The petitioners state that currently Canada's commitments have overstretched the capacity of the Canadian armed forces' human resources and created pressure to recruit additional personnel. Children and youth still in school are generally not of a maturity to understand fully the implications of a decision to join the military and they lack sufficient other supports to access post-secondary education. It makes joining the military seem enticing, and possibly the only way to access a desired education and training opportunities.

Therefore, the petitioners hereby request that Parliament call a halt to recruitment activities of the Canadian armed forces in schools.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce a petition signed by people throughout Saskatchewan in support of the First Nations University of Canada .

The petitioners wish to draw to the attention of the House that the viability of the First Nations University of Canada was threatened by the removal of provincial and federal funding, and that the reinstatement of provincial funds and up to $3 million in federal funds to the proposed student-based support program would not ensure long-term sustainable funding of the First Nations University. Steps have been taken to improve the governance and accountability of the First Nations University and a memorandum of understanding has been signed by all parties. The founding mission of the university includes a commitment to enhance the quality of life and to preserve, protect and interpret the history, language, culture and artistic heritage of First Nations people.

The petitioners state that we must not lose the valuable resource and indigenous knowledge that has been created at the First Nations University. They add that above all, we must support the students at First Nations University who have demonstrated their dedication, commitment and overwhelming desire for the continuation of the institution.

The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to work with the students, staff and faculty to build a sustainable and viable future for the First Nations University of Canada by fully reinstating federal funding of at least $7.2 million.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with signatures from 192 constituents in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon. They are opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia, and want suicide prevention programs to be strengthened.

They have asked that Parliament retain section 241 of the Criminal Code without changes in order that Parliament not sanction or allow the counselling, aiding or abetting of suicide whether by personal action or the Internet.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the NDP fought successfully to stop the incredibly misguided attempt by the government to implement the security and prosperity partnership.

I have other petitions that have come in signed by hundreds of residents of southern Ontario, northern Manitoba, the Thompson area, and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. They say very clearly that they oppose the implementation of the security and prosperity partnership. They did not believe that there was a democratic mandate from the government and were concerned about the profound consequences of the SPP agenda on Canada's existence as a sovereign nation, and its ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social and environmental policies.

The petitioners have called upon the government to have full consultations and to submit the whole SPP process to the Parliament of Canada. As everyone knows, the NDP opposition in this corner successfully derailed the SPP process. These petitioners want to be heard by the Government of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition today signed by dozens of Manitobans calling on the government to stop the closing of six Canadian prison farms.

All six prison farms, including Rockwood Institution in Manitoba, have been functioning farms for many decades providing food to prisons and to the community. The prison farm operations provide rehabilitation and training for prisoners through working with and caring for plants and animals. The work ethic, rehabilitation and benefit of waking up at six in the morning and working outdoors is a discipline that Canadians can appreciate.

On Sunday, June 6, 2010, Margaret Atwood will join citizens of all ages and political stripes on a march to the Correctional Service of Canada, Kingston headquarters, where they will be posting their demands for saving and revitalizing Canada's six prison farms. There are 16 months of public events, letters, petitions, delegations and parliamentary motions that have nearly unanimous support across the country. Yet, the federal government is plowing ahead with its ill-considered plan to shut down the six prison farms.

Heritage dairy herds that provide milk for inmates in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick are slated for disposal. The first sale is scheduled for Kingston's Frontenac Institution the week of June 21. This will be the death of the farms.

Therefore, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to stop the closure of the six Canadian prison farm operations across Canada, and produce a report on the work and rehabilitative benefit to prisoners of the farm operations and on how the program can be adapted to meet the agricultural needs of the 21st century.

With respect to the National Do Not Call List (DNCL) that was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians, as of March 4, 2010: (a) what is the total number of fines that have been imposed to date by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC); (b) what is the total value of fines that have been imposed to date; (c) what is the total number of fines that have been paid to date; (d) what is the total value of fines that have been paid to date; (e) why, as a general policy, does the CRTC not release to the public the names of companies violating the National DNCL if the fine is paid without being contested; (f) why are CRTC hearings on the National DNCL violations not open to the Canadian public or to the media; and (g) has the CRTC forwarded information on violations of the National DNCL to the RCMP for further investigation?

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the National Do Not Call List, DNCL, that was created to reduce the number of unwanted telemarketing calls received by Canadians, as of March 4, 2010: in response to

a) The total number of administrative monetary penalties, AMPs, imposed is 11.

In response to b) The total value of AMPs that have been imposed is $73 000.

In response to c) The total number of AMPs that have been paid to date is one partial payment.

In response to d) The total value of AMPs that have been paid is $250.

Collection action is pursued on all files where the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, CRTC, has imposed an AMP in relation to violation of the national DNCL rules and payment has not been made. The CRTC is utilizing all means of collection available for outstanding accounts. This includes, but is not limited to, actions such as referral of outstanding accounts to collection agencies or the Canada Revenue Agency, CRA, for refund set-off of funds otherwise payable by the CRA under the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act or Excise Act, under authority of subsection 164(2) of the Income Tax Act or subsection 155(1) of the Financial Administration Act.

In response to e) Where the CRTC suspects that there has been a breach of the unsolicited telecommunications rules, the CRTC first attempts to work directly with the telemarketer to obtain compliance on a voluntary basis.

Where voluntary compliance efforts fail, the CRTC issues a notice of violation to the telemarketer, which sets out proposed penalties for violations of the Rules.

The CRTC generally does not publish the name of the telemarketer at the notice of violation stage as the telemarketer has not been given the chance to formally contest the allegations. If the telemarketer complies with the requirements of the notice of violation, their names are not published.

However, if the telemarketer contests the notice of violation and the CRTC determines that violations set out in the notice were committed by the telemarketer, the name of the telemarketer, the nature of the violations and the amount of the penalties are published.

Also, if the telemarketer fails to either contest the notice of violation or pay the penalties set out in the notice, the name of the telemarketer, the nature of the violations and the amount of the penalties are published.

In response to f) In general, the CRTC’s proceedings on whether to impose AMPs are conducted entirely in writing and, as such, are not conducted by way of oral hearings. After considering any written representations made by a telemarketer in response to a notice of violation, the CRTC issues a decision on whether to impose any penalties on the telemarketer. The CRTC’s decision is posted on its website and is available to the Canadian public and the media.

Where a telemarketer applies to the CRTC to review and rescind or vary a decision, the telemarketer’s notice of violation and review and vary application are made available to the public on the CRTC’s website. Any interested person may intervene by providing comments they consider appropriate.

In response to g) During an investigation, if the information uncovered suggests that the telemarketer might be engaged in criminal activities, the CRTC notifies agencies that are empowered to pursue such activities. This includes the Competition Bureau and PhoneBusters. PhoneBusters is the Canadian Anti-fraud Call Centre, managed on a tripartite basis by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, RCMP, the Ontario Provincial Police and the Competition Bureau. To date, the CRTC has not forwarded information on violation of the national DNCL to the RCMP for further investigation.

Note: The CRTC publishes on its website a monthly national DNCL status report. The report, commencing for the month of July 2009, contains monthly and cumulative information on a number of key variables, including number of telephone or fax numbers registered on the national DNCL; number of complaints; number of new, closed and active investigations; number of notices of violation issued; and number of AMPs issued.

The CRTC’s national DNCL status report also contains a list of the CRTC’s decisions regarding violations of the unsolicited telecommunications rules. The list identifies the companies that were found to be in violation and contains the URL link to each of the decisions. These decisions contain information on the circumstances of the case and the amount of the AMP levied.

With respect to the Privy Council Office: (a) what was the total amount spent by the Privy Council Office on public opinion polling and research in the 2008-2009 fiscal year; and (b) how much has been spent on public opinion polling and research between April 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010?

Mr. Speaker, in response to part a) of the question, the Privy Council Office, PCO, spent $408,426.97 on public opinion polling and research in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. In response to part b) of the question, PCO spent $129,127.81 on public opinion polling and research between April 1, 2009 and March 1, 2010.

With respect to the Office of the Prime Minister (PMO): (a) how many employees worked in the PMO during the 2008-2009 fiscal year; and (b) how many employees were employed in the PMO as of March 1, 2010?